Source: http://untiredwithloving.org/gulshan_q_3_4_I.html
Shabistari
287. Who am I, tell me about “I”
What does Voyage within “I” mean?
Lahiji
This was a question in a letter from Khorasan to Shabistari’s town asking about the nature of “I” and what does it mean to travel within “I”.
Shabistari
289. Once Absolute Being betokened
Verbiage of “I” used for that
Betokened: Something that could be shown or pointed at by signs or tokens or ideas and so on.
Lahiji
Know the Absolute Being is Hu/IT (i.e. Allah), and because of Tauhid (Divine Oneness) nothing could be annexed to IT, any additions of any form. But once there appears a Ta’yyun (Contrast) then this contrasting allows for becoming betokened i.e. IT could be pointed at apart from all others (whether they exist or not). That addressable form of Divine Presence is coined, is addressed as “I”. This appearance of contrast (Ta’ayyun) is consequently applied to anything in existence which is contrasted (from all else).
Shabistari
290. Haqiqat once contrasted by Ta’ayyun (Contrast)
You call that in your speech as “I”
Dara: Shabistari uses the word Haqiqat, this refers to the reality or nature of Absolute Being that which once contrasted from all else, then as a consequence of this contrast the construct of “I” appears for everything.
Lahiji
Know all that which is betokened as “I”, “You” and “He/IT“, are the realities associate with the Absolute Reality (Allah) yet of different wordings. Sometimes to emphasize the modality of two-ness then “You” is used (as in You & I) while all else as the ambiance. Yet sometimes there is no room for anything else and wording “I” is used indicative of an extreme form of Tauhid (Divine Oneness). Other times beyond all that which has contrasted and beyond multitudes, at the very end of comprehension and grasp called “He/IT“.
But these constructs are lingual or conceptual not a reality in and of themselves as Shabistari continues:
Shabistari
291. You and I are presentations of Dhat (Divine Essence)
Plaitworks of Mishkat (Alcove) of Existence
Lahiji
Mishkat is the place or holder for the Lantern/lamp and it used to have designs e.g. plaitworks like braided grid or grill which the light could go through. These constructs of “You” and “I” are the patterns of light through those plaitworks, each indicates a peculiar contrasting yet by same singleton Light. Therefore all the multitudes (Takath-thur) of different beings are these contrasts via the plaitworks of the lamp-holder not different lights! In conclusion the only true reality is that Singleton Light and the rest of the multitudes are not real (Haqiqi). (Dara: The multitudes of all else that Allah are mere simulations, just as you and I)
Lahiji goes to interpret the few stanzas of Shabistari much the same as the Tafsir (Exegesis) for Nur:
http://www.untiredwithloving.org/haqqi_light.html
On Voyage Within The “I”
298. Rise above this world on a better path
Leave cosmos and become a universe within your own
Dara: As was explained earlier the construct of I was appeared in this world for all things in existence and in particular within us as humans as well, therefore this entity I as if covers the entire landscape of existence like unto a space one could travel through as if traveling through all that exists!
Lahiji
Rise above this world and see that the entire universe is just “You” and therefore become a universe by means of this You-ness and see all that is in existence as a part of “You”. Everything else is there to contrast “I” (or “You”) and therefore there is nothing else real other than “I”. All things in cosmos, in part or as copy exist within the human being (e.g. molecules and matter and waves and so on), therefore the human being is the last frontier of Zuhur (Appearance) of Wujud (Being-ness) and encompasses all else.
Dara: Clearly we could imagine ourselves being an electron and traveling through detectors in a lab and ask ourselves how would we motion as an electron, or imagine ourselves as creatures living millions of years ago and ask questions about their behaviour and habitat, this Anthropomorphism is the cornerstone of our cognition and indeed as Shabistari versed we could be astronauts voyaging through all in existence by means of it.
Shabistari then mentions the Qab Qasain:
http://www.untiredwithloving.org/two_arcs.html
Much similar to Ibn Arabi’s Kitab Al-Nun:
Salaam Dara
I’m thinking we need to supplement Lahiji here because he and Shabistari both know the metaphysics so well that it doesn’t apparently occur to them to explain the grounds for what they’re saying. Their comments are like reminders and amplifications if you already know their understanding of the structure of the universe, the self, the soul, etc. But if you don’t know all this, their comments seem arbitrary.
I’m remembering a time when I struggled to follow any of this owing to my English-speaking western assumptions. My understanding of “I” as the entire non-physical, thinking, emoting part of me, my personal mind, heart and soul, separate from everyone else’s, didn’t fit what Shabistari and Lahiji are saying – and yet the words are the same. I think now that I would call all these “aspects of the nafs”, and that the “I” discussed here arises from the process of creation – which also has significant aspects that are not part of the western tradition.
I’d like to investigate these connections, but will you first correct or refine or fill out what I’m trying to say?
Salaam Grant
One might think of “I” as an artifact instead of a lingual pronoun which might only serve as a reference. Therefore there is a construct “I” that we use like an artifact, as for example are our limbs.
In English language and Western thought “I” is a part of emoting or a psychological process, it is not a construction or an actual entity.
Shabistari says that this artifact is peculiar in a sense that it is an actual space with navigation within, I look at a cat running across the yard, “I” could easily place myself into cat’s position and navigate the yard in some space! What space is that? Definitely not the yard, so the said space comes with “I”.
The closest to this idea is found amongst the German physicists namely Gedanken or Gedankenexperiment :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
Today even the Arab is not sensitive to such nuances of the Propehtic Language, therefore these discussions are odd, but during the time of Shabistari Muslims were well versed in these sorts of philosophical research and considered it as a part of the religion, no longer today.
Dara
Salaam Dara
I like that way of expressing our human “I” as an artifact.
Shabistari differentiates between the human “I” and the universal “I” that is God animating this universe of matter. He even addresses what I thought was a western problem – the belief that “I” is my own heart, mind and soul – and advises the person who thinks this to check themselves over thoroughly until they realise they are nothing but parts (your artifacts, I think) of the universal “I” (couplets 293–295). And then they will be ready to move to the next stage, which is to travel through this universal “I” (couplet 298), which they now know to be God, not themselves. I’m thinking it would be this universal “I” that has the space in it? Or perhaps one could say that the artifact human “I” has the space by virtue of the universal “I” that animates it?
Sallam everybody, a very intressting question Grant! Since I’ve just realized the illusion of the “I”, and the limits with believing such concepts. Since many believe in the illusion of the “I” and understand the world thru an “particle/material” based eye, while dissmantling the illusion thru knowledge and elevating just like the fibonnaci sequency, inshallah. One percieves the reality of the true “I” and the illusion of limits set by one self and others thru norms etc. I’m thinking about epigenetics here as well, since how one percieves and understands, leads to a “mode” of “living” life. Again, I’m stil new to alot of this but stil excited! So I’d like to share some of my findings so far, I’ve sent some to Dara, and there’s more to come, inshallah!
http://thespiritscience.net/2014/10/27/is-life-one-big-video-game/
Salaam Bilal
I think the interaction between the universal “I” and the human “I” is rather wonderful. There is a verse in the Qur’an* where God says he is closer to us than our jugular vein (50:16). It seems to me the sheathing of our artifact human “I” within the universal divine “I” is a rather compelling demonstration of that verse. Or do I mean the veiling of the universal divine “I” with our limited human “I”?
It is worth taking the time to savor this, don’t you think? Let’s not rush to dismantle the illusion of the Veil! Is it not created by God? And are we not here within it in order to see and experience it? Think what it does to your prayer to remember your puny artificial self within the universal “I” that animates the Veil around you. That is something worth slowing down for!
*Dara, thanks for the corrected reference.
See Arabic, translation and discussion here: http://www.untiredwithloving.org/kitab_nun.html#nexus
By the way, I had an idea about the key terms and concepts. Just like Grant pointed out, Shabestari and Lahiji already had deep understanding to the metaphysics and concepts, one can say it’s they’re A,B,C’s. So I thought since I’ve haven’t found a book yet that points out and explains the concepts and terms, and unifies them in a quanta level. Dara sent me a link of the “Geometrization of Tauheed” by Shams Maghribi, and it helped alot. Since each one of us has a mode of understanding and learning, therefore one must reach out to all readers. Some need diagrams and charts to better grasp “words, concepts etc.”
So the idea is very simple, we use the same concept as sacred geometry to concretesize something abstract. It’s called cognitive learning, here’s an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
And, why sacred geometry? Here’s an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSmdSw9eEIA
I’m not talking about making movies but somewhat “reference key” so one can allways look back on and find ones way back. Let me know! 🙂
Currently working with Ahmed Ghazzali’s Sawanih, after reading Lama’at by Fakhr al-Din Iraqi. So just finished translating chapter 26 that says (in english):
(1) The reason for the flight of the beloved from the lover is that union (wisal) is not a trifling matter. Just as the lover must submit himself (to the beloved) so that he is no longer himself, the beloved must also consent to his being her lover. So long as she has not consumed him entirely from inside and taken him as a part of herself, and so long as she has not received him completely, she escapes from him. For although he does not realize this truth mentally by the external side of knowledge, yet deep in his heart and soul he knows what the monster of love, which is in the depths (of the ocean of) his being takes in from him or brings forth for him with each breath.
(2) Then (the relation between the lover and the beloved in) that unison (ittihad) is of various kinds: At times she becomes the sword while he becomes the sheath, and at times (the relationship is changed) the other way around. At one time (in the most perfect stage of love when all differences have disappeared) no judgment can be made concerning that (relationship, so that one cannot say who is the sword and who is the sheath).
May Allah (swt) be pleased with them both!